Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[Bell]

Christopher, what the hell was the use for a concrete core anyway? The pictures posted by Uruk, Bonavada and others show the towers could stand without a concrete core. So why cast such as a core... 7 floors behind the rest of the building?

^^ Christopher?

 

[bonavada]

My memories are accurate. More accurate than most peoples......

is your memory accurate about the question below?

once again chris................
..........you interviewed an ironworker/windwalker in 2002 (you have stated previously that he was 64 years old at that time) and that he was 24 when he worked at the WTC. there's a 40 year gap there. so are you stating that the man was working at the WTC in 1962?

BV

 

[Bell]

My memories are accurate. More accurate than most peoples ...

Some examples of Christophera's 'accurate' memory:

Flight 176 hit the south east corner of WTC 2.

Flight 176 hit the south east corner of WTC 2.

And yes, they are two different posts, follow the link.

 

[tsig]

What is in that image? You say it's concrete, but the only evidence that you've offered is that YOU haven't seen another explanation. If you want to do a proof by elimination, you have to list all other possibilities and then prove that none of them could be true. So far you haven't done that.

Sorry. They wouldn't be swaying fast enough to fill up an area several pixels wide in the image exposure time.

Over a hundred pieces of rebar, each apparently over 200 feet long (according to my crude measurements, the "spire" is at least 16 stories tall), all standing at exactly the same angle. And if they are moving as you claim, all moving at the same (or nearly the same) speed and in the same phase?

Could these be 2 pictures of the same thing? In any case, your "reasoning" about the scale being correct is non-sensical.

Your only proof is your claim that there is a concrete object. Since you haven't proven that there is a concrete object, you haven't proven anything about what is in that image. The "spire" image looks to me like steel columns with the debris cloud in between.

OK rebar is never welded in position. It is wired into postion Go to any construction site.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Say, fellows:

I've found raw evidence of the Concrete Core.

 

[tsig]

It would be expected that he smelled jet fuel.

http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029
Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them.
The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.
"There was nothing there but rubble" Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press - gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.
The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. ‘There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything’ he said


Mike Pecoraro had no way of knowing that rebar coated with plastic explosive had detonated turning the walls to rubble. When high explosives are optimally contained by mineral materials the minerals in close proximity are turned to extremely fine particales which are also very hot. He had no way of knowing what was smoke was actually concrete particulate. You cannot breath that and that was exactly his experience



i don't have to explain that because there were other explosions that were documented. Remember William Rodriguez?

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7762
There were a total of fourteen people in the office at this time. As he was talking with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.??At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. But the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking." said Rodriguez, who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Company


I've answered enough of your question and Mike Pecoraro calls out "rubble" framed walls of drywall are referred to as "debris".

How about you explain why no steel core columns are seen here or [url=http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG]here?
[/url]

I sea no steel where there is no steal.

 

[The Almond]

OK rebar is never welded in position. It is wired into postion Go to any construction site.

I've seen some welding, but you're right, the overwhelming majority of rebar is just tied.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Just couldn't let this one pass without comment:

There is redundant support from the raw evidence of images from the demo for the concrete core.

Are you sure you didn't mean 'abundant'???

Synonyms for redundant:
bombastic, de trop, inessential, inordinate, iterating, long-winded, padded, palaverous, reiterating, repetitious, spare, superfluous, surplus, tautological, unnecessary, unwanted, verbose, wordy.

Antonyms: essential, necessary.

 

[Christophera]

No, Chris, that is the same tired old pic you've shown us a hundred times, and it shows an opaque cloud. It could be from sheetrock, the concrete floors or from belly-button fluff. Your mere didactic statement that it's from the core doesn't make it so.

It seems you are short on reasonable responses because that is not the only image showing concrete, and you have not explained why there are no steel core columns seen. The top of WTC 2 concrete core is seen inside the perimeter walls before it crashes on WTC 3 and there can be no mistaking that brownish gray material.

Did you ever see the pictures of WTC 3 after that hit?

Can you show me a steel-core building where the steel has remained protruding after its collapse? The core is meant to support the whole building. If the building has collapsed then ipso facto, the core has collapsed, too.

Shorter towers are made with steel core columns but none has ever collapsed, so your request is not reasonable.

Can't you get it through your head that your pictures and endless reiterations of "it's undeniable" and "this is not in doubt" are not convincing anyone?

Since none of the deniers of the concrete core have ever produced one image of any of the 47, 1300 foot steel core columns have ever produced an image from the demolition that shows the columns clearly in the core area at some elevation above ground, you NEED to apply your statement to yourself and others that deny the concrete core.

For me, the whole thing flounders on the nonsense idea that the proudest skyscrapers in New York, perhaps in the U.S.A., would have been deliberately built to be destroyed on some future President's idle whim.

You have made a mistake, an assumption, undoubtedly based in attitude. I do not assert that it was a presidentual whim.

 

[Bell]

Well, Christophera? Is all this 'debunking of us deniers' getting to you? Are you growing tired? There are a lot more posts to reply to. Get to it!

 

[Orphia Nay]

Darn, that is wall board over steel!

Yep. Plus a lot of dust. I think we're all agreed on that. Or do we need a poll?

Your answer is ridiculous, unreasonable, facetious and mocking the true explanation for an event that killed 3000 innocent people.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

You might as well have said, "Your answer is cromulent, interfrastic, contrafibulous, and mocking the tautologically tautological explanation for my mummy not loving me".

Wrong again. you need real evidence or you should hang it up!

Right again.

 

[Christophera]

OK rebar is never welded in position. It is wired into postion Go to any construction site.

Am I arguing with somebody that does not recognize there was ALOT that was special about the Twin Towers?

Go to any construction site and you will not find high tensile steel rebar. You will not find 3 inch diameter rebar.

Of course you will also not find a 1368 foot tower being constructed.

The concrete shear walls of the WTC had 3 inch diameter, high tensile stel rebar that was butt welded 100% then X-rayed.

Given what you've displayed as common sense, you will never guess why, so I will tell you. LIABILITY and the factor of being the tallest buildings in the world.

 

[Christophera]

Steel, ve don't need no stinking' steel man!

Zat is my line you bonehead!

Ve see no steel core columns in da zenter of ze core!

 

[Christophera]

Some examples of Christophera's 'accurate' memory:

And yes, they are two different posts, follow the link.

If you only had as much commen sense as you do an editors eyes for typos.

 

[Christophera]

I've seen some welding, but you're right, the overwhelming majority of rebar is just tied.

And the horizontal bar was tied to the welded vertical bar.

I see most larger bar welded these days as the specs call for heavy tie wire that is very difficult to do in tight areas, whereas the arc stinger can be inserted in a tight area and applied in a fraction of the time actually reducing costs. Welders are somewhat cheaper these days, by the hour, than they were.

 

[Christophera]

is your memory accurate about the question below?

BV

I think you've found a mis statement, and perhaps you've confused when I met him and when I interviewed him. I'm mostly repeating what he told me, and his memory wasn't that good.

But you are correct, the arithmetic doesn't work, but not way off as he worked on the towers for at least 6 years.

 

[Christophera]

this is an amusingly spurious explanation. i would suggest that if anyone has the authority to dictate mike pecararos experience it would be mike pecararo. your attempt to put words into mike's mouth here are pathetic.

After the fact interpretation is what words are for, even those who spoke them.

ETA: get it right chris not that you DON'T HAVE TO explain it...YOU CAN'T explain it. there was only ONE explosion and that was above the firedoor. story, end of.

now......not withstanding that i was discussing mike pecararo....i believe william rodriguez' story has had more changes than michael jackson's nostrils. and anyway i think that nothing he says proves any of your outlandish theory of exploding rebar in the basement.

I've documented two explosions in different areas at the same time, Here is a third. Remember Phillip Morelli?

http://www.ny1.com/pages/RRR/911special_survivors.html
Construction worker in the WTC Phillip Morelli (37 years old on 9-11-1) describes being thrown to the ground by two explosions while in the fourth subbasement of the North Tower. The first, which threw him to the ground and seemed to coincide with the plane crash, was followed by a larger blast that again threw him to the ground and this time blew out walls. He then made his way to the South Tower and was in the subbasement there when the second plane hit, again associated with a powerful underground blast. This is one of a series of interviews with WTC survivors done by NY1 News: ny1.com/pages/RRR/911special_survivors.htmlRemember

no chris. i can't let you get away with this. debris, rubble, they are just words mate.
a couple of dictionary definitions:-
rubble: The remains of something destroyed, disintegrated, or decayed
rubble: A jumbled mass of rough or broken things
debris: The scattered remains of something broken or destroyed; rubble or wreckage
debris: Carelessly discarded refuse; litter

the two words are highly interchangable and your definitions are a hark-back to newspeak 1984.

Not so interchangeble in the construction/engineering world, particuarly in the demolition world, and given these circumstances, engineers will always borrow the terms from the demo world. A truck load of concrete is never called debris unless it is "concrete debris" or "hard debris" it is always "rubble" which means there may be some bricks and stone in with the concrete. Rubble is actually an old term that referres to permeable hard backfill.

NOTHING mike pecararo says supports your basement explosion theory. you have stated before that the walls down there were made of reinforced concrete. where did you get that information? why can't you tell us?

I can tell you. The documentary talked about the basement walls in the parking area, and it mentioned that the "same special plastic coating was on the rebar".

i have chris, quite a few times. once again though..........whatever the structures standing in those pictures are, neither i, nor you, could say with any certainty what they are. there may be steel columns, there may not. most people i think would agree with me.

keep wriggling chris.

BV

No steel is ever seen where it should be and what can only be concrete is seen.

You would like to have people believe I'm wiggling, I'm not. You and the deniers are attempting the manipulation of evidence and testimony which the supports the concrete core,...........

Because you have no evidence for the steel core columns.​

Other than misrepresented construction photos.

 

[Christophera]

Just couldn't let this one pass without comment:

Are you sure you didn't mean 'abundant'???

Redundant, abundant evidence, yea, that's okay.

Synonyms for redundant:
bombastic, de trop, inessential, inordinate, iterating, long-winded, padded, palaverous, reiterating, repetitious, spare, superfluous, surplus, tautological, unnecessary, unwanted, verbose, wordy.

Antonyms: essential, necessary.

 

[Christophera]

What is in that image? You say it's concrete, but the only evidence that you've offered is that YOU haven't seen another explanation

Yes, and what is seen must be explained. If you do not believe this is so try explaining something you cannot see. This is you major problem with talkng about the supposed steel core columns. You cannot even come up with a plan that shows how they are connected.

You can come up with 4 different floor plans for the core though.​

Sorry. They wouldn't be swaying fast enough to fill up an area several pixels wide in the image exposure time.

Over a hundred pieces of rebar, each apparently over 200 feet long (according to my crude measurements, the "spire" is at least 16 stories tall), all standing at exactly the same angle. And if they are moving as you claim, all moving at the same (or nearly the same) speed and in the same phase?

Could these be 2 pictures of the same thing? In any case, your "reasoning" about the scale being correct is non-sensical.

Your only proof is your claim that there is a concrete object. Since you haven't proven that there is a concrete object, you haven't proven anything about what is in that image. The "spire" image looks to me like steel columns with the debris cloud in between.

Above you have just unsuccessfully tried to say 2 things.

ONE, this image of the fine vertical elements does not show fine vertical elements.

TWO That this image shows the same fine vertical elements.

Any rational person can see you are wrong twice.

the second photo shows heavy steel slightly taller than the first. What has happened is that the heavy steel fell away and the concrete of the core wall had been blown off the vertical rebar by the horizontal rebar which had viable C4 explosive while the C4 on the vertical bar had aged and was not viable which kept the high tensile steel intact.

This image of the interior box columns shows how the spire was left after the concrete core walls exploded. Tempered steel columns of the thickness found in the WTC will only be damages by very large amounts of high explosives in direct contact that are also well contained in order to develop huge amounts of high pressure gasses.

 

[Christophera]

Excellent. I knew we could find a picture of the WTC 2 steel being built ahead of the core. The mistakes of WTC 1 processes were not repeated.

Below is a usenet comment which descibes what I saw in the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers". The WTC 1 core was constructed ahead of the steel erection. After thinking about it I realized I would have built the steel frame first and used it to align the elevator guide rails.

The docuemntary explained that there was much construction politics around the beginning as the elevator crews basically controlled the process as contracts stated that "elevators were to be given a priority and other trades were to work to get elevators as far up as possible", or some such language.

Constructon politics, being what they are could definitely lead to what was seen by some passer by below and what I saw in the 1990 documentary. Which was a mistake. The wrong way to start, very time consuming.

Thanks to Bell we have just shown the correct way to start your tower. Pour the core inside AFTER the exterior steel is in position so you can use it to form with and be support for the elevator guide rail supports too.

"Tony Jebson" <jebbo@texas.net> wrote:

>......Apparently, the WTC towers had no internal
>structural columns but relied on the exterior structure for
>support / strength. No doubt the impact of an airplane does
>this no end of harm.
I worked in downtown NY in the late 1960's when the towers were
built! At lunch time we went to the construction site to watch the
progress. And we saw them first buildt an internal thick walled
rectangular concrete core inside which later the elevators ran. The
steel work was erected around this core several floors behind!

-=tom=-